Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Departments
Infoboxes
More biography infoboxes...
Biography work groups
Things you can do (edit)
Biography article statistics

This list is generated automatically on alternate nights.
view full worklist

Biography
articles
Importance
Top None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 21 480 501
A 2 19 21
Good article GA 24 966 990
B 151 14396 14547
Start 2 110533 110535
Stub 336778 336778
List 111 111
Assessed 200 463283 463483
Unassessed 56189 56189
Total 200 519472 519672
Shortcut:
WT:MILBIO

Contents

[edit] Category standardization

Just a note so everyone is aware: the category structure and naming conventions have been the subject of much discussion (most recently here, but there are a number of earlier discussions in the archives), and WP:MILHIST will probably attempt a comprehensive standardization of names in the near future. The expected structure is, broadly:

There will then be a large number of intersecting sub-categories, primarily of the form "Military personnel of X in the Y War".

This scheme is, however, open to further discussion; anyone who has some ideas is encouraged to start up a comprehensive discussion at WT:MILHIST. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 assessments and this work group

Thanks to kingboyk, we now have the assessments split into work groups to make things easier to digest! What does this mean? Well, now we have a nice work list that shows not only the quality scale, but also any comments left in the project banner template. Also, you'll notice we now have stats for this workgroup displayed on the workgroup page, and you also now have your own log of changes to quality and importance... plange 05:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How come only 1 FA is listed in the work list when there are six more on the main work-group page? And where are the GAs? --Laserbeamcrossfire 06:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Because no one's tagged those yet :-) plange 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
.....that explains everything! --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to {{WPBiography}}

Dear workgroup, After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography the importance= field has been changed on the Project template. The changes and how they affect this workgroup are as follows:

  • importance= has been deprecated in favour of priority=.
  • priority= is the same as importance, it's just a friendlier word. The meanings of the grades haven't changed.
  • Importance params should be removed (not an urgent task, just don't use importance= from now and on change any you see to priority= if you feel like it)
  • importance/priority is no longer assessed on a Project scale, except for the ~200 top core articles which use a new parameter core=yes
  • this means that the priority= ratings are now for the exclusive use of the workgroups
  • The workgroups are free to work out their own "importance" (priority) ratings. priority=Top is no longer off limits. So, for example, I've upgraded John Lennon to priority=Top. He's not on the core bios list but that doesn't matter, as the priority is only for the workgroups and Lennon is no doubt top priority/importance in the arts & entertainment field.

Hope that helps. Any questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography please. --kingboyk 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Hbdragon88 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MRE-related Userboxes

The editors here might be interested in several new userboxes devoted to the glories of the U.S. military's finest culinary achievement, the MRE:

This user has eaten MREs and lived to tell the tale.

(Caption reads: This user has eaten MREs and lived to tell the tale.) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE Survivor}}

This user has eaten MREs and earned a Purple Heart as a consequence.

(Caption reads: This user has eaten MREs and earned a Purple Heart as a consequence.) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE Survivor2}}

This user will dine on MREs as soon as they offer varieties such as "Foie gras de canard aux truffes".

(Caption reads: This user will dine on MREs as soon as they offer varieties such as "Foie gras de canard aux truffes".) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE French}}

This user knows that MREs owe their famed longevity to the fact that even bacteria will not touch the stuff.

(Caption reads: This user knows that MREs owe their famed longevity to the fact that even bacteria will not touch the stuff.) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE}}

[edit] Articles for deletion

Hiya, an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject, Antoni Dunin, has been nominated for deletion. Is there a location that this should be listed, to draw the attention of the WikiProject participants to the debate? --Elonka 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

I have just started up WikiProject Colditz to cover articles regarding Colditz Castle and, in particular, it's role as a Prisoner of War camp in WWII. This project aims to cover the castle and all the notable prisoners, such as Michael Sinclair and Pat Reid, who were imprisoned there. Feel free to check it out and if you want to help out, I will be most grateful! -- Qarnos 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about infobox information

I posted in the Biography" Politics an government workgroup but received no responses to my question so I am positn here as the historical figure in question does have a military background. In the biography article, Lester B. Pearson, there are flag icons placed in the infobox. In the WikiAircraft Project Group, wherein I have made the majority of my contributions, there was a consensus that the infobox was not to include the flag symbols to portray country status/origins.

When the flags were removed in the Pearson article, it triggered the following exchange: WP:FLAGCRUFT Just thought you'd like to know...--Boffob 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not policy, so it doesn't carry much weight, if any. dcandeto 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As an argument it carries much more weight than simply putting flag icons for the heck of it. It's worth a read for sure.--Boffob 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No one's putting flag icons in for the heck of it. dcandeto 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
My comment: "Removed flag icons as per WP:FLAGCRUFT; please do not revert, adding flagcruft is considered vandalism" probably should have been succinctly written as "may be considered vandalism". Moreover, since this is not the first time that you have been informed of flagcruft and your insistence on providing decoration in an infobox where discussion by other users and editors have concluded that it is inappropriate, you are acting in contravention of the group's wishes. As you have already concluded, Wikipedia does not have "hard-and-fast" rules but it does have a standard of conduct. If you noted that flagcruft was an issue already from other edits, why add it again? IMHO Bzuk 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Why add it again? Probably because people are removing it based on a nonexistent policy. Removing flags because you think they're cruft is akin to moving article names to the British or American spelling because you like it better. dcandeto 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Quote from WP:Flagcruft:"Not intended for birth/date places"
"It may be tempting to use flag icons in the birth/death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, but this is strongly deprecated." "Not intended" is pretty clear as policy. Bzuk 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
That's a quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT. It is not a quote from Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is are flags part of the infobox or not? In the category of Canadian Prime Ministers, I went through all of the Prime Ministers of Canada and there are no other flags in any of the infoboxes, except in the Pearson article. The aforementioned editor has now reverted the changes in the infobox a number of times so he may be trying to make a point, but I would like to hear some comments from other editors versed in the biography format. IMHOBzuk 03:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Heinrich Severloh

Can you guys please take a look at Heinrich Severloh. There is some serious problem with some IPs trying to vandalize the articles as they say it is all fiction. I have placed references on the talkpage that were previously deleted by the same IPs elsewhere. The article appears notable and can be sourced with these articles but you might have access to other sources shedding more light on the issue. Agathoclea 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in Info Boxes

I wish to support Bzuk comments about flags in the info boxes. In particular they add little to military (and other) biographies and are often misleading, historically inaccurate, or even ideologically motivated. For example, most RN officers have had these national flags added to the extent that anglo-irish have the Republic's flag. Similarly colonial officers sometimes will have the US flag, and British officerds the wrong union flag.

For example, why should there be flags in the info box for Nelson? I would like to see a consensus on this Sic Transit 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Burbeck

Is it possible for one of this project's leaders to visit Henry Burbeck's page. That is the first Wikipedia page I have done or should say carried the torch on. I added substantial information there and references. Also, can someone tell me how to properly cite a letter and also a pension file so that I could add the info from these sources to the Burbeck page. I do have an image of his signature from the web and I don't think signatures are copywritten, but I am unsure. I would like to add it to the page. Could someone advise me? Also, I would like to make this an A class article can someone tell me what changes I could make to get it to that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 17:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for an officer's awards and decorations

Is there a military web site where I can search for an officer's awards and decorations? Sbowers3 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Alexandru Averescu now open

The A-Class review for Alexandru Averescu is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

There is a proposal at Wikiproject stub sorting about the best way to split Cat:United Kingdom military personnel stubs here any views would be grateful. Waacstats 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing the London Gazette

Members of this project may find {{LondonGazette}} useful if they have need of making a reference to the London Gazette. It will help to present such references in a uniform style, and consitent use will also make it easier to maintain these references in future (we currently have the situation where a website upgrade a couple of months ago broke all older references to individual gazettes. (originally posted by David Underdown on the main page. Thought it should be here as well. Woodym555 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward C. Kuhn

Greetings. A great-great-nephew has posted a long biographical essay on Edward C. Kuhn, a prolific designer of flags, heraldry and insignia for the US military. I call attention to it here so that he can get some help getting it more into line with the MOS. He's a first-time editor, so be gentle. Thanks. --Finngall talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Michael the Brave now open

The A-Class review for Michael the Brave is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review of Ali

Ali is nominated as a good article. all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!--Seyyed(t-c) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Brian Horrocks now open

The peer review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Erich Hartmann now open

The A-Class review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom military personnel stubs

If Category:United Kingdom military personnel stubs is for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland , what about United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain? I would not bother to make this distinction but has it been made?

Also what about before the Acts of Union 1707 are there categories for England Scotland Wales and Ireland, it does not make sense to have civil war soldiers in the New Model Army as military stubs of the UK. Are there are such stub templates for the England, etc?

A further complication is that after James VII came to the throne AFAICT there would be a royal army for campaigns financed by the English Parliament, but did he and the rest of the Stuarts have Royal armies and navies or different ones for different nations? If they were not national based then what were they? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi now open

The peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Brian Horrocks now open

The A-Class review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of references

Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of Polikarpov I-180, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the aviation project group, is also problematic. What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

According to Footnotes An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". so they do not have to be used as sources in the writing to be added to Bibliography just that the might be of interest to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi now open

The A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Brock

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 19:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)